JOINT REGIONAL DIRECTOR Vs. ARAVIND SPINNER P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the orders of the Employees' State Insurance Court (Labour Court) Tirunelveli passed in E.S.I.O.P. Nos. 2, 6 and 25 of 2011 dated 19.11.2011 on the ground that the lower Court has miserably failed to appreciate the provisions under Regulations 31, ESI (General) Regulations 1950, which stipulate that an employer is liable to pay contribution in respect of an employee within 21 days of the last day of the calendar month in which the contributions fall due and to submit returns of contribution within the time stipulated under Regulations 26 and this aspect has been completely lost sight off by the Labour Court. When sub Section 4 of the Section 39 of ESI Act 1948 mandates the contributions payable in respect of each wage period, the respondent Aravind Spinners (P) Ltd., committed a huge delay in making payment of regular contribution. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the Appellant that when the Court below has given an explicit finding in favour of the Appellant herein that the respondent has committed delay in making the employers' contribution, erroneously held that the Company was a sick one and wrongly condoned the delay and thereby refused to award compensation, resultantly, the impugned order passed by the Assistant Director, E.S.I., who directed the payment of Rs. 30,000/- has been completely set aside.

(2.) Finally, it was also pleaded that while the respondent company has not produced any profit and loss account for the relevant period either before the Lower Court or before the Appellate Quasi Judicial Authority, the Court below ought not to have held that the respondent is liable to pay the damages as demanded by the respondent. In any event, the Court below, after finding fault with the respondent in not making the employers contribution, instead of allowing the Appeal, should have remanded back the matter, even that exercise has not been properly done. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for interference.

(3.) In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that though the respondent company was started in 1981 with 50 workmen, within nine years in 1990, it was grown as a big establishment with 150 workmen. Subsequently, due to various factors in addition to heavy accumulated loss, the respondent factory was running on conversion basis and in the year 2004, the Canara Bank initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act and finally assets were brought into action, as a result, the factory came to be closed on 15.10.2007. Now, the factory was completely closed out. That apart, winding up proceedings started on 25.8.2008 also came to be over. Therefore, the question of allowing the appeal finding fault with the impugned order passed by the Court is not going to serve any purpose. It was also contended that when the Company started in the year 1981 came to be subject matter of SARFAESI proceedings in the year 2004 and subsequently, the Official Liquidator was also appointed, the Official Liquidator after his appointment has moved an Appeal aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Director of ESI before the Court below and only at the instance of the Official Liquidator, the Appeal filed by the respondent was allowed.